ALLEGED LIBEL

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22900, 1 December 1937, Page 19

ALLEGED LIBEL

CITY FIRM'S CIRCULAR CLAIM BY FORMER CLIENT £SOO DAMAGES SOUGHT The hearing of an action for damages for .alleged libel and slander was continued in the Supreme Court before Mr, Justice Fair and a jury of four yesterday. The action was brought by Mrs. Muriel Ann Mitchell, hosiery importer (Mr. Hunt), against Brookbanks, Limited, warehousemen, and Frank Christopher Brookbanks, Thomas Cecil Batts and Bertie Williams, . the directors of the firm. A sum of £4OO was claimed for alleged libel contained in a circular, and £IOO for alleged slander uttered to the Official Assignee by directors of the .company. Mr. North appeared for the firm and Mr. Munro for the directors. Plaintiff, who carried on a hosiery business in Queen Street until she went bankrupt on her own petition on July 20, 1935, stated on oath at a meeting of creditors that she had been "selling on consignment for Brookbanks, Limited." She alleged that this statement was afterwards contradicted in a circular and verbally by the defendants. Plaintiff's claim for damages was based on her allegation that this statement was afterward malicious and meant that she was a perjures and a liar. ' Contentions by Defence / The defendants denied having used the words complained of, or that the plaintiff had suffered any damage, and claimed privilege and that the words, if uttered, were true. Edgar Leopold Ansell, soft goods merchant, said he had received the circular in question from the defendants and put it into his waste paper basket. He might have discussed it with his partner or clerks. He mentioned it one day to the plaintiff in Queen Street. His impression was that Brookbanks were endeavouring to clear their, name, but he had not considered how it affected plaintiff. It was not the practice for warehouses to supply goods on consignment, but he did not know if that was an improper practice. In cross-examination witness said there might have been a perfectly bona, fide dispute between the parties as to what the arrangement was. Charles Wilson Sanderson, now manager for a company at Hamilton, gave evidence that he had discussed the plaintiff's case and the circular sent out with his sister. He said he did not remember having received the circular. Attitude of Witness Mr., Hunt asked leave to treat tho witness as hostile, and the point was argued by counsel in the absence of the jury. His Honor ruled that Mr. Hunt was entitled to put to the witness a statement he had made on 'the subject earlier. Witness said he could recall discussion on the circular but not receiving it, and his office girl was in the same position. He could not recall making ""tEa SCatemlnt' "thai" he did see the circular. His Honor; Do .you.think it would prej udice you with your firm if you gave evidence for Mrs. Mitchell in this case 0 Witness said he had discussed the matter with his general manager and it made no difference to the company whether the circular was received or not. His Honor said he was prepared to accept witness' statement that he would be quite prepared to give evidence if he could recollect the circular. 'He refused tbe application that tho witness should be treated as hostile. Secretary's Evidence The secretary of Brookbanks,. Limited, James Taverner, who had been aub-poenaed, to produce certain papers, said he considered the circular of August 2, 1936, a fair statement of the position. There was no reference to it in the minutes of the company. The arrangement of the firm with plaintiff was designed for the protection of the firm. It was a common practice for warehouses to agree to. accept returns from clients. In answer to Mr. North, witness said the plaintiff was temporarily supplied with a stock of goods for her shop window marked "consignment," and there was also her ordinary current account, which was quite separate. He did not regard the arrangement of July 24, 1933, with plaintiff as a consignment arrangement, and had never so regarded it. The purpose of the circular was to let the firm's customers know that it had not been selling goods and running a warehouse at the same time. • Evidence for the plaintiff had not been completed when the case was adjourned until this morning.